"Marina and Lee" by Priscilla Johnson McMillan

[Charles Collins]

During her HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald was having obvious difficulty remembering details from 15-years earlier. Here is her sworn testimony regarding the accuracy of Priscilla Johnson McMillan's book "Marina and Lee":

Mr. McDONALD - What happened the next morning?
Mrs. PORTER - I am sorry, it is very hard for me to remember right now details, so whatever I told Priscilla, that was the truth. My memory was much fresher then, and you can take the statements in the book as a true fact.

 

[John Iacoletti]

"Marina and Lee" wasn't published until 1977, and it's written in narrative form with McMillan "recreating" word-for-word conversations.  We don't know what words Marina actually said to McMillan, and what is dramatic license.  In any case, those conversations post-date Marina's direct WC testimony for sure.

[Charles Collins]

"Marina and Lee" wasn't published until 1977, and it's written in narrative form with McMillan "recreating" word-for-word conversations.  We don't know what words Marina actually said to McMillan, and what is dramatic license.  In any case, those conversations post-date Marina's direct WC testimony for sure.

In any case, those conversations post-date Marina's direct WC testimony for sure.


Marina’s second testimony to the WC was taken on July 24, 1964. Here is an excerpt from the forward (by Joseph Finder) of the reissue (2013) of “Marina and Lee.”

From July 1964 until the end of the year, McMillan all but moved in with Oswald’s young widow and her two small children in her ranch house outside Dallas. They cooked meals and traveled together. McMillan babysat Marina and Lee’s kids. They traded confidences. The terrible event was less than a year old, and its details were still fresh. This was about as close as we could get to asking questions of Oswald himself.

He doesn’t say what day in July that McMillan “all but moved in.” If all of the conversations between Marina and McMillan actually did post-date her testimony (as you claim), they didn’t post-date it by very long.

For someone who tries to insinuate that others do not care about the truth, you really ought to look in the mirror and ask yourself whether or not you care about the truth.

[John Iacoletti]

It says in the original printing of “Marina and Lee” that their first interview session for the book was in August.

[Charles Collins]

It says in the original printing of “Marina and Lee” that their first interview session for the book was in August.

From page 797 of my Kindle copy of “Marina and Lee”:

Information concerning the childhood and youth of Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova in Russia (Part One); her marriage to Lee Harvey Oswald, and their life together in Minsk (Part Two); and their life together in the United States, as well as her experiences after her husband’s death (Parts Three and Four), is derived from her own recollections as Marina Oswald in personal interviews with the author in Russian from June 1964 through December 1964, and as Marina Oswald and Marina Oswald Porter in subsequent telephone conversations and correspondence in Russian and English; from Warren Commission testimony by Marina Oswald in Vols. 1, 5, and 11 (see below); from an account of her life by Marina Oswald dated January 4, 1964, written for the FBI and published in Vol. 18, pp. 596–642; and from reports on FBI and Secret Service interviews with Marina Oswald appearing in the Warren Commission Exhibits.

[Charles Collins]

Another excerpt from Marina Oswald’s HSCA deposition concerning the book “Marina and Lee” by Priscilla Johnson McMillan:


By Mr. CORNWELL:
Q. And following that then, after you saw the book in its final form, did you read it in its entirety?
A. Yes; I did.
Q. With respect to the matters in the book that you have per- sonal knowledge about, and I take it there are some things in there you simply have no personal knowledge about, but with respect to the things that you do, did you find inaccuracies in the book or things that did not comport with your memory?
A. Well, as far as the facts that came from me or---
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. That is true but some conclusion that she has to come to on her own, maybe even analyzing my character, that was up to her to decide but the facts were not twisted.
Q. OK, So the facts then that you have knowledge of as portrayed in the book are accurate to the best of your memory?
A. Only the facts that concern my and Lee's life. I am not responsible for other characters, I don't know how true that is.
Q. I understand. At least the facts that concern you and Lee and that you had personal knowledge of after reading the book seemed accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would only be the conclusions or the inferences drawn from that that might be Priscilla's and might differ from yours, is that correct?
A. Yes; that is true.
.
.
.
Q. If you have a different view on those subjects because you wets one of the closest people to Lee, that is what we would like to know.,;
A. Well, I would buy Priscilla's conclusions. From my own personal experience I did not come up with anything different. Priscilla did not have the attitude to condemn or pronounce guilty from the first page, she was just working through the dark as well as I was and everybody else, so I would still, in my mind agree with that conclusion more than: the conspiracy theory because I do not know anything about the other matters. I do not know anything about ballistics, you know, to dis- prove that Lee didn't do it. I would like that very much but I know so little. Do you understand me?
Q. Yes.
A. Make a perfect picture.
Q. I think so. As I understand what you are stating it is that the. conclusions that were drawn in the book, even though Priscilla drew them on her own, you agree with them.
A. Well, She didn't just dream them up.
Q. I understand, but it was her right to draw the conclusions.
A. Yes.
Q. And she of course wrote the book.
A. I did not give her the right but I respect her for doing a good job, too, and she was very honest. Some things were not very meaningful.
Q. Your opinions on the subjects are the same as hers?
A. Yes.
Q. As set forth in the book?
A. No; not my opinions because she made some opinions from a psychology point of view. I don't know enough about that to make an opinion.
Q. Is there any aspect of the book which you have a different opinion on?
A. Like, for example, Priscilla was in a position to analyze. Maybe somebody will criticize her for being an immature psychiatrist but she tried to draw some kind of picture to compare me being without par- ents and him being without a father that might motivate us to be mar- ried to each other, but those traits of character it is not up to me to say she is right or wrong. I cannot assume that is correct.
Q. The reason I am asking the question again is we are trying to get an insight.
A. The facts were not twisted to meet somebody's theory.



While we do not have every exact word that Marina said to Priscilla, we do have Marina’s testimony regarding the accuracy of the book. And Marina’s (qualified) agreement with Priscilla’s opinions, etc.

[Jon Banks]

McMillan was outed as a lifelong CIA collaborator shortly before her death...

“I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around…. Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told.” - 1962 CIA memo

[Charles Collins]

McMillan was outed as a lifelong CIA collaborator shortly before her death...

“I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around…. Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told.” - 1962 CIA memo

Just because someone in the CIA was apparently interested in “trying to encourage” McMillan at one point in time doesn’t meant that they even followed up on the suggestion, much less that they were successful. The point is that Marina testified that what McMillan wrote in that book was accurate and was not twisted. If the CIA was controlling what McMillan wrote, then why did McMillan wait so long to publish the book?